| Literature DB >> 29920553 |
Ramona Laila Melliger1, Brigitte Braschler1, Hans-Peter Rusterholz1, Bruno Baur1.
Abstract
Urbanisation is increasing worldwide and is regarded a major driver of environmental change altering local species assemblages in urban green areas. Forests are one of the most frequent habitat types in urban landscapes harbouring many native species and providing important ecosystem services. By using a multi-taxa approach covering a range of trophic ranks, we examined the influence of degree of urbanisation and forest size on the species richness and functional diversity of plants, and ground surface-active ants and spiders. We conducted field surveys in twenty-six forests in the urban region of Basel, Switzerland. We found that a species' response to urbanisation varied depending on trophic rank, habitat specificity and the diversity indices used. In plants, species richness decreased with degree of urbanisation, whereas that of both arthropod groups was not affected. However, ants and spiders at higher trophic rank showed greater shifts in species composition with increasing degree of urbanisation, and the percentage of forest specialists in both arthropod groups increased with forest size. Local abiotic site characteristics were also crucial for plant species diversity and species composition, while the structural diversity of both leaf litter and vegetation was important for the diversity of ants and spiders. Our results highlight that even small urban forests can harbour a considerable biodiversity including habitat specialists. Nonetheless, urbanisation directly and indirectly caused major shifts in species composition. Therefore, special consideration needs to be given to vulnerable species, including those with special habitat requirements. Locally adapted management practices could be a step forward to enhance habitat quality in a way to maximize diversity of forest species and thus ensure forest ecosystem functioning; albeit large-scale factors also remain important.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29920553 PMCID: PMC6007905 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199245
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Location of the study area in Northwestern Switzerland and the distribution of the forests examined in the area of Basel-Stadt.
The investigation area is surrounded by dense settlements in Germany (north), France (northwest) and Switzerland (south-west).
Species traits of plants, ants, and spiders.
| Trait | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Life form | Categorical | Macrophanerophyte; nanophanerophyte; chamaephyte; hemicryptophyte; geophyte; therophyte |
| Reproduction type | Categorical | Sexual; mixed |
| Ecological strategy | Categorical | Following Grime (1979): C; CR; CS; CSR; S; SR |
| Pollination syndrome | Categorical | Insects; wind |
| Seed dispersal type | Categorical | Zoochory; anemochory; hemerochory; autochory; hydrochory |
| Seed mass | Continuous | Mean of seed mass (mg) |
| Body size | Continuous | Maximum of the total length of workers (mm) |
| Main nest stratum | Categorical | Wood or litter; soil or crevices; both |
| Number of queens | Categorical | Monogynous; oligogynous; polygynous |
| Main food type | Categorical | Animal matter; animal matter and carbohydrates; carbohydrates; grains |
| Body size | Continuous | Mean body size (mm) weighted by the proportion of males and females recorded in this study |
| Hunting mode | Categorical | Web building; hunting (including active hunting and ambush) |
Source
1 [37]
2 [38]
3 species descriptions in the taxonomic literature, sources listed under 4, and own measurements
4 [29] and three web-based resources (www.antwiki.org, www.ameisenwiki.de, www.antweb.org)
5 [33]
6 [39]
Summary of GLM analyses examining the effects of degree of urbanisation, forest size and shape, forest management (time since last thinning), disturbance (indicated by path density), canopy closure, soil characteristics (moisture, pH, soil orgN and orgP) and cover of ground vegetation on the species richness, percentage of forest specialists, Shannon diversity and evenness of vascular plants.
| Species richness | Percentage of | Shannon diversity | Shannon evenness | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | F | P | df | F | P | df | F | P | df | F | P | |
| Degree of urbanisation | 2,23 | 8.43 | 2,23 | 4.59 | 2,23 | 7.71 | 2,23 | 3.44 | 0.056 | |||
| Forest size | 2,21 | 0.04 | 0.96 | 2,21 | 2.07 | 0.16 | 2,21 | 1.78 | 0.20 | 2,21 | 4.88 | |
| Shape index | 2,19 | 1.43 | 0.27 | 2,19 | 18.59 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Time since last thinning | – | – | – | 2,17 | 1.47 | 0.26 | 2,19 | 2.64 | 0.10 | 2,19 | 5.57 | |
| Path density | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Canopy closure | 1,18 | 7.84 | 1,16 | 9.53 | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Soil moisture content | – | – | – | 1,15 | 2.91 | 0.11 | 1,18 | 7.83 | 1,18 | 9.85 | ||
| Soil pH | – | – | – | 1,14 | 2.63 | 0.13 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Soil orgN | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1,17 | 1.23 | 0.28 | 1,17 | 1.50 | 0.24 |
| Soil orgP | 1,17 | 3.47 | 0.085 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Cover of ground vegetation | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||||
| Degree of urbanisation*forest size | 4,13 | 1.41 | 0.28 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Significant P-values (< 0.05) are in bold
1 log-transformed
–Factor was excluded from the model by step-wise reduction
† Factor was not included in the model
Fig 2Plant species richness (a; mean ± SE), percentage of forest specialists (b), Shannon diversity (c) and evenness (d) in forests, which were located in areas with different degrees of urbanisation.
Summary of GLM analyses examining the effects of degree of urbanisation, forest size and shape, forest management (time since last thinning), disturbance (indicated by path density), canopy closure, soil organic matter content, litter characteristics (moisture, pH) and structural diversity measures (litter biomass, vegetation structure and amount of dead wood) on the species richness, percentages of forest specialists and generalists, Shannon diversity and evenness of ants.
| Sample-based rarefied species richness | Percentage of | Percentage of habitat generalists | Shannon diversity | Shannon evenness | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | F | P | df | F | P | df | F | P | df | F | P | Df | F | P | |
| Degree of urbanisation | 2,23 | 2.94 | 0.083 | 2,23 | 1.84 | 0.21 | 2,23 | 4.31 | 2,23 | 3.21 | 0.06 | 2,23 | 0.33 | 0.72 | |
| Forest size | 2,21 | 2.71 | 0.10 | 2,21 | 6.09 | 2,21 | 0.71 | 0.51 | 2,21 | 4.71 | 2,21 | 1.57 | 0.15 | ||
| Shape index | – | – | – | 2,19 | 1.20 | 0.34 | 2,19 | 2.56 | 0.14 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Time since last thinning | – | – | – | 2,17 | 1.83 | 0.21 | 2,17 | 2.59 | 0.13 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Path density | 1,20 | 6.68 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1,20 | 7.45 | – | – | – | ||
| Canopy closure | – | – | – | 1,16 | 5.29 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1,20 | 1.57 | 0.23 | |
| Soil organic matter content1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1,16 | 5.79 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Litter moisture content | – | – | – | 1,15 | 2.46 | 0.15 | 1,15 | 6.31 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Litter pH | 1,19 | 7.12 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1,19 | 5.38 | – | – | – | ||
| Amount of litter biomass | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Vegetation structure | – | – | – | 1,14 | 1.58 | 0.24 | 1,14 | 5.65 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Amount of dead wood | 1,18 | 1.36 | 0.13 | – | – | – | 1,13 | 1.61 | 0.24 | 1,18 | 6.47 | 0 | – | – | – |
| Degree of urbanisation*forest size | 4,14 | 1.09 | 0.40 | 4,10 | 2.55 | 0.10 | 4,9 | 1.93 | 0.19 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Significant P-values (< 0.05) are in bold
1 log-transformed
–Factor/Co-factor was excluded due to by step-wise model reduction procedure
Summary of GLM analyses examining the effects of degree of urbanisation, forest size and shape, forest management (time since last thinning), disturbance (indicated by path density), canopy closure, soil organic matter content, litter characteristics (moisture, pH) and structural diversity measures (litter biomass, vegetation structure and amount of dead wood) on the species richness, percentages of forest specialists and generalists, Shannon diversity and evenness of spiders.
| Sample-based rarefied species richness | Percentage of | Percentage of habitat generalists | Shannon diversity | Shannon evenness | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | F | P | df | F | P | df | F | P | df | F | P | df | F | P | |
| Degree of urbanisation | 2,23 | 0.60 | 0.56 | 2,23 | 9.30 | 2,23 | 4.48 | 2,23 | 1.36 | 0.30 | 2,23 | 1.67 | 0.23 | ||
| Forest size | 2,21 | 0.02 | 0.98 | 2,21 | 3.96 | 2,21 | 0.29 | 0.75 | 2,21 | 1.90 | 0.20 | 2,21 | 3.77 | 0.051 | |
| Shape index | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2,19 | 1.33 | 0.31 | 2,19 | 3.38 | 0.066 |
| Time since last thinning | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2,17 | 1.57 | 0.26 | – | – | – |
| Path density | – | – | – | 1,20 | 2.54 | 0.13 | 1,20 | 4.36 | 0.053 | – | – | – | 1,18 | 1.94 | 0.19 |
| Canopy closure | 1,20 | 4.33 | 0.052 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1,16 | 1.88 | 0.20 | – | – | – |
| Soil organic matter content | – | – | – | 1,19 | 2.67 | 0.12 | 1,19 | 1.78 | 0.20 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Litter moisture content | 1,19 | 5.29 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1,15 | 2.17 | 0.17 | – | – | – | |
| Litter pH | 1,18 | 1.23 | 0.28 | 1,18 | 7.20 | 1,18 | 2.64 | 0.12 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Amount of litter biomass | – | – | – | 1,17 | 4.41 | 0.051 | 1,17 | 1.77 | 0.20 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Vegetation structure | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1,16 | 3.68 | 0.073 | 1,14 | 2.06 | 0.18 | 1,17 | 1.77 | 0.21 |
| Amount of dead wood | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Degree of urbanisation*forest size | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 4,10 | 1.51 | 0.27 | 4,13 | 5.20 | |
Significant P-values (< 0.05) are in bold
1 log-transformed
–Factor was excluded from the model by step-wise reduction
Fig 3NMDS of (a) plant, (b) ant and (c) spider species composition. Forests sites are grouped according to their degree of urbanisation (low, medium, high).